Voting on the Nuclear Option: 3-D Chess

by DemFromCT

See DHinMI's post today (Voting on the Nuclear Option: It's All About the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination) and my previous post on head counts for context.

Part of the problem of trying to figure the vote (and even those with access to R and D staffers like the Note are having the same problem) is that some of the undecideds are trully undecided, and for a clear reason... they're against the nuclear option, but don't want to vote against their caucus if they can help it in any way. it's what made Specter vote for an obscure Scottish equivalent of 'Present' rather than yea oir nay on Clinton's impeachment.

A further problem is the multivariate nature of the equation. At the same time as the N.O. is being debated, Bush is worried that the Social Security debate is keeping him off the news, and at the same time he's got Bolton's UN nomination to manage. As Steve Clemons notes:

The best outcome for John Bolton right now would be that a "deal" is struck between Democrats and Republicans on the contested judges and on the filibuster rules.

Such a deal, if accomplished next week will perhaps lead Democrats to not filibuster on Bolton even though there are fundamental problems with the administration's failure to provide the NSA intercepts and other requested evidence to Senators before the vote. TWN hopes this is not the case -- but to be fair to the process, the Dems may yield if they win something from Frist on this showdown.

On the other hand, if Frist steamrolls on, and the nuclear option is triggered -- as seems to be happening next Tuesday as a vote has been called for that day on one of the contested judges -- then we need to see how the votes will fall on ending the ability of Dems to filibuster judicial confirmation votes.

If the Democrats and various Republican allies lose that vote, then TWN sees Bolton's nomination being indefinitely held. The White House will then have to go to a recess appointment, or withdraw his nomination.

Clemons is right about best outcome for Bolton, even if it doesn't follow that Bolton will be filibustered if Frist prevails. But that they are wrapped up together is no in doubt. The bottom line is that it's the same moderates who either will prevail and show their power on all three topics, or get their arms twisted in a way that can satisfy Bush on two of three (but not all three).

At this point, given Bolton's damaged nomination, and Bush's damaged SS proposal, it seems to me that Bush is going to have to figure a damage control strategy at some level. Triumphalism at any win will be thick as thieves by this President (particularly the filibuster fight), but the public does not want what the Republicans are proposing:

More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just approve them because they are the president's choices.

That's one of the few aspects of this divisive issue that gets widespread agreement, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Friday.

Want a 4th dimension? Add Iraq. Want a 5th? Add the economy. From the WSJ:

AMERICANS WANT action on the economy.

Two-thirds in new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll say Bush's policies aren't working to protect manufacturing jobs or contain the cost of gasoline. They blame high pump prices more on oil-producing nations and oil companies than on Bush, but still want the White House and Congress to do something.

"Their views are decidedly negative," say pollsters Peter Hart and Bill McInturff, who conduct the Journal/NBC survey. Concern about the budget deficit reaches highest point since 1994, as 20% call it the country's biggest economic problem. The poll's margin of error is 3.1 percentage points.

INSURGENT ATTACKS wear down support for Iraq commitment.

By 41%-18%, Americans say violence there has increased rather than decreased in past six months. Just one in four call the war a victory, with most others ambivalent. Confidence that the engagement will end successfully has fallen to 40% from 47% just after Iraqi elections; 50% say they are less confident.

Americans embrace a shift toward Iraqi control. About 53% want the U.S. to begin reducing troops, but 62% of Republicans want current levels maintained. By 40%-12%, the public says Iraq is closer to having a stable democratic government, not further away.

Those are additional damage zones for the President, and far more important to the public than filibusters.

Comments

[DemFromCT]

By all accounts, the reason there will be no deal with moderates is because the R moderates and Dem moderates do not trust each other. Bloviators and pundits can say 'it's both sides', but it's clearly not; it is a consequence of Junior's red state governing style, wherein blue staters and Europeans are ignored except for the occasional pick-off attempt.